[poutsara]

John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson.

Honorary manosphere members of their time and apparent "liberals" or at least populists.

[ElJefe]

The red-pill analogy is good because it removes the liberal narrative haze that distorts reality. It's called red-pill because it's a useful metaphor to illustrate just how far-reaching and all-encompassing this reality-distortion is - and it starts with the historical narrative. If you want to know why two thirds of RooshV members preferred the President, let's start by investigating their understanding of history.

I am willing to bet anything it will be quite a liberal narrative.

That in itself need not be bad, but it is bad when it retards a proper and truer understanding of the historical context of the issues we discuss.

I don't care if it is called liberal or something else. As long as it's accurate. I just call the modern narrative liberal because liberals designed it. It also happens to be inaccurate. Not that superficial tea-party narratives are any better - and listening to Romney talk about America was a rather painful exercise too.

And an accurate understanding of history or historical dialectic is something rare indeed, simply becaue you have to read so god-damn much from so many periods to recognize what history and which patterns are repeating themselves.

[soup]

There's also a strange thing that happens when you compare the free love movement to modern playerhood. There is a lot of hate on liberal free love in the manosphere because it creates fat sluts. But in the 1960s, free love probably entailed banging lots of slim-bodied hippy babes.

My life is essentially a free love movement.

All the girls in my rotation have to know by now that I'm a loose canon.

I think that a lot of people who "uphold marriage" etc. on the conservative side could never let themselves take the real red-pill.. they could never accept the truth that is game. And it is the same for the feminized leftists.

Game is more important than any of the other manosphere concepts. It transcends the two party system. This alone makes it a great threat to the status quo.

[Prophylaxis]

(02-20-2013 09:22 PM)Grit Wrote:  

Correct me if i'm wrong OP, but shouldn't both liberals and conservatives be talking about manosphere stuff just a little bit before we suggest that manosphere people embrace more of whats already being talked about publicly?

It shouldn't be about 'embracing' anything. It should be about critically thinking and scrutinising alternative perspectives in an objective manner. I think this article was a great litmus test to the attitudes of some of the Manosphere members.

The kind of irrational shaming demonstrated in the comments section by a portion of the 'Manosphere' goes beyond politics. If people are unable to comprehend alternate views, who knows how far-reaching this tunnel-vision is?

If [Insert PUA] says you must NEVER buy a woman a drink - will they blindly accept this?

If it is accepted within the community that the only feminine women in the world live in [Insert Country] - will they blindly accept this?

If they are told the ONE exercise to cure X condition..will they continue to perform this, even though they are not getting better?

If it is acknowledged within the community that real estate is a complete waste of time...will they only put their money into the share market?

If they are told/conditioned to believe all [Insert Political Party] are nutjobs run by feminazis...you see where I'm going.

Change can happen within the manosphere - we just need Men to start acting like Men, and become independent thinkers - not sheep.

[ElJefe]

(02-21-2013 04:40 AM)soup Wrote:  

There's also a strange thing that happens when you compare the free love movement to modern playerhood. There is a lot of hate on liberal free love in the manosphere because it creates fat sluts. But in the 1960s, free love probably entailed banging lots of slim-bodied hippy babes.

My life is essentially a free love movement.

All the girls in my rotation have to know by now that I'm a loose canon.

I think that a lot of people who "uphold marriage" etc. on the conservative side could never let themselves take the real red-pill.. they could never accept the truth that is game. And it is the same for the feminized leftists.

Game is more important than any of the other manosphere concepts. It transcends the two party system. This alone makes it a great threat to the status quo.

Again, this is good for the alphas in society, but bad for folks who play by the rules. Civilization is highly dependent on channeling the sexual energy of men into productive endeavors. If you spend all your time chasing tail, you're not building a house, hacking a living out of the wilderness, and raising five little do-gooders. It's the difference between barbarians where life is ended on a whim, and a modern civilization where society works as a team.

I think a lot of the liberal hating has to do with those who can see that taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines civilization.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

This comment made me really sad:

Quote:

- If I see another post like this here it will be the last time I visit this site.
- if this Stalinist beta posts this apologist dribble again im right behind you

etc etc

I can't imagine stopping to read Roissy just because he posts "right-wing" opinions occasionally. Heck, as a fairly liberal type who hates Fox News in general, I've gladly shared the Fox News feminism-bashing article yesterday. These comments make me think that these people are so engrossed in their political identities that they'd throw everything important in life under the bus just because someone disagreed with them respectfully and listed his arguments.

Awful. To all the right-leaning forum members posting here, I'm very glad you aren't like that and letting differences cloud a common cause.

[soup]

(02-21-2013 04:55 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 04:40 AM)soup Wrote:  

There's also a strange thing that happens when you compare the free love movement to modern playerhood. There is a lot of hate on liberal free love in the manosphere because it creates fat sluts. But in the 1960s, free love probably entailed banging lots of slim-bodied hippy babes.

My life is essentially a free love movement.

All the girls in my rotation have to know by now that I'm a loose canon.

I think that a lot of people who "uphold marriage" etc. on the conservative side could never let themselves take the real red-pill.. they could never accept the truth that is game. And it is the same for the feminized leftists.

Game is more important than any of the other manosphere concepts. It transcends the two party system. This alone makes it a great threat to the status quo.

Again, this is good for the alphas in society, but bad for folks who play by the rules. Civilization is highly dependent on channeling the sexual energy of men into productive endeavors. If you spend all your time chasing tail, you're not building a house, hacking a living out of the wilderness, and raising five little do-gooders. It's the difference between barbarians where life is ended on a whim, and a modern civilization where society works as a team.

I think a lot of the liberal hating has to do with those who can see that taken to its logical conclusion, it undermines civilization.

What "logical conclusion" are you talking about?

Are you saying that game is bad for society?

I see it as a way to compensate for the negative parts of society, namely over-reaching feminism.

How does liberalism undermine society? If anything, true liberalism is the big tent. It's the bigger family. The whole world as a family.

The truth is that

[Teedub]

(02-20-2013 07:36 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Seeing how a lot of the manosphere are actually far right (just check out the never ending bitching about "baboons" and multiculturalism at CH) they are unlikely to drop this anytime soon.

Being opposed to multiculturalism isn't de facto right wing. Many on the left are also opposed to it as it creates cultural and economic ghettoes. Ditto mass immigration, it negatively effects the standard of living and working wage of the host population, and old school lefties aren't in support of this. Only hard-left 'one worlders'.

Anyway Tuth, excellent article and you're spot on about the American left being Euro centre-right. I'm 'right wing' by UK standards, but I couldn't be right wing in America due to the jingoistic Christian types lampooned on South Park and such, with whom I am almost diametrically opposed to ideologically.

[ElJefe]

(02-21-2013 05:06 AM)soup Wrote:  

What "logical conclusion" are you talking about?

Are you saying that game is bad for society?

I see it as a way to compensate for the negative parts of society, namely over-reaching feminism.

How does liberalism undermine society? If anything, true liberalism is the big tent. It's the bigger family. The whole world as a family.

The truth is that

Not saying game is bad, not at all. It's excellent for relationship management.

Sexual liberation is bad for civilization, but good for you and me individually. Not everyone can be alphas, and modern civilization wasn't built by alpha men who spent all their time fucking and fighting.

We often discuss how society no longer rewards the hard-efforts and loyalty of average men. Their just milk-cows for a burgeoning government apparatus with a utopian agenda. If they all decided to wack off to porn for 20 hours a week and work just 30, instead of working 50, society loses 40% of its productive capacity (all else equal).

We need civilization to maintain our way of life, and our standard of living. If we remove the underpinnings of civilization, which is (to be frank) monogamy, civilization will slowly regress, then with increasing speed as it accelerates towards its end. Men will spend more time in an anarchistic state vying for mates (quantity) instead of trying to amass wealth and status for a single high-quality mate - there is a trade-off, and more effort will placed on quantity vis-a-vis quality.

This goes against the more primitive and barbarous part of our nature - at least our mammalian and reptilian nature, but its what sets us apart from animals that we can lift ourselves our of a destitute and harsh existence and enjoy the comforts of civilization, which is a disciplining exercise - anyways that's what Aristotle and Plato took to be more in harmony with our human nature - the whole human nature is a composite of mammalian, reptilian and a higher nature - being in harmony with one part doesn't mean we're in harmony with the whole. Discipline is the key. And hypergamy is gratification of a sexual appetite beyond what is necessary for any single man. It's like getting fat, but off sex instead of food.

Now... I love sex, and sex with more women the better. but I'm just maximizing my utility in a deteriorating system. That doesn't stop me from understanding and seeing some of root causes of why Western civilization is in deep trouble.

[Acute Angle]

(02-20-2013 07:01 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

the word "liberal" itself has been successfully rendered a generic term of abuse--with little consideration to its actual meaning, which is now virtually lost. That's a big problem in itself.

As something of an aside, this was a deliberate tactic by Conservatives - see The Language Trap. That is what prompted me to start the new words thread.

[magellan]

Ziltoid Wrote:

The left/right nomenclature in US politics is just comical at this point, there is literally no substantial difference between the two any more.
The puppet strings have never been more visible, and nobody seems to care...

That's what I love about these die hard conservatives. They're just as retarded as the die hard liberals.

If you feel the need to allow your fem emotions to trump pure logic when forming your political opinions, then you are not a man. Plain and simple.

[j r]

(02-21-2013 05:46 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 05:06 AM)soup Wrote:  

What "logical conclusion" are you talking about?

Are you saying that game is bad for society?

I see it as a way to compensate for the negative parts of society, namely over-reaching feminism.

How does liberalism undermine society? If anything, true liberalism is the big tent. It's the bigger family. The whole world as a family.

The truth is that

Not saying game is bad, not at all. It's excellent for relationship management.

Sexual liberation is bad for civilization, but good for you and me individually. Not everyone can be alphas, and modern civilization wasn't built by alpha men who spent all their time fucking and fighting.

We often discuss how society no longer rewards the hard-efforts and loyalty of average men. Their just milk-cows for a burgeoning government apparatus with a utopian agenda. If they all decided to wack off to porn for 20 hours a week and work just 30, instead of working 50, society loses 40% of its productive capacity (all else equal).

We need civilization to maintain our way of life, and our standard of living. If we remove the underpinnings of civilization, which is (to be frank) monogamy, civilization will slowly regress, then with increasing speed as it accelerates towards its end. Men will spend more time in an anarchistic state vying for mates (quantity) instead of trying to amass wealth and status for a single high-quality mate - there is a trade-off, and more effort will placed on quantity vis-a-vis quality.

This goes against the more primitive and barbarous part of our nature - at least our mammalian and reptilian nature, but its what sets us apart from animals that we can lift ourselves our of a destitute and harsh existence and enjoy the comforts of civilization, which is a disciplining exercise - anyways that's what Aristotle and Plato took to be more in harmony with our human nature - the whole human nature is a composite of mammalian, reptilian and a higher nature - being in harmony with one part doesn't mean we're in harmony with the whole. Discipline is the key. And hypergamy is gratification of a sexual appetite beyond what is necessary for any single man. It's like getting fat, but off sex instead of food.

Now... I love sex, and sex with more women the better. but I'm just maximizing my utility in a deteriorating system. That doesn't stop me from understanding and seeing some of root causes of why Western civilization is in deep trouble.

This is half true. There is somewhat if a crisis of masculinity right now. Too many dudes are either Affliction-wearing clowns or effeminate SWPLs. This is the area where I think the manosphere has value.

However, all this talk about civilization and traditonal society and what is "natural" is a bit overblown.
You could just as easily turn it all around and say that traditional society is the blue pill, weighing men down with family and responsibility in order to get them working soul-crushing jobs in factories and cubicles.

The idea that a certain way of life is necessarily better for society or necessary for civilization is suspect at best. And it's usually just a way for people to justify their pre-existing preferences or rationalize their privileges. Slavery was necessary for the pre-war south and that's why white southerners fought so hard to keep it. Does that mean it was right? Society is an abstraction. You can have a very stable society in which the individual people in that society are living terrible lives. If you want to justify a certain way of life, then you need to make a case to individuals that one way of living is better than another and let individuals decide for themselves. This is why I am neither conservative nor progressive. I am liberal, in the classical sense. Do whatever you want, just clean up your own mess.

Personally, I'm not interested in existing solely for the purpose of being a cog in someone else's grand ideals of what society ought to be. And it doesn't matter if that someone else is a traditionalist pursuing some idealized version of the 1950s or a progressive who is trying to turn the world into some kind of gender-neutral, welfare-state vegan paradise of social justice.

[ElJefe]

(02-21-2013 08:15 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is half true. There is somewhat if a crisis of masculinity right now. Too many dudes are either Affliction-wearing clowns or effeminate SWPLs. This is the area where I think the manosphere has value.

However, all this talk about civilization and traditonal society and what is "natural" is a bit overblown.
You could just as easily turn it all around and say that traditional society is the blue pill, weighing men down with family and responsibility in order to get them working soul-crushing jobs in factories and cubicles.

The idea that a certain way of life is necessarily better for society or necessary for civilization is suspect at best. And it's usually just a way for people to justify their pre-existing preferences or rationalize their privileges. Slavery was necessary for the pre-war south and that's why white southerners fought so hard to keep it. Does that mean it was right? Society is an abstraction. You can have a very stable society in which the individual people in that society are living terrible lives. If you want to justify a certain way of life, then you need to make a case to individuals that one way of living is better than another and let individuals decide for themselves. This is why I am neither conservative nor progressive. I am liberal, in the classical sense. Do whatever you want, just clean up your own mess.

Personally, I'm not interested in existing solely for the purpose of being a cog in someone else's grand ideals of what society ought to be. And it doesn't matter if that someone else is a traditionalist pursuing some idealized version of the 1950s or a progressive who is trying to turn the world into some kind of gender-neutral, welfare-state vegan paradise of social justice.

I think there are objective standards of when life is better or worse. Just ask people. It's common knowledge people today are more stressed and less happy than our grandparents. Funnily, that time was the point of high growth, high degress of wage equality.

Now, no one wants to feel like a cog.

But a lot of men were happy with 9-5 jobs and wives and children to come home to. And a lot of women were happier, too.

I think a solid case could be made that 1960 was the time when Americans were happiest.

They did an experiment in behavioral economics that showed how important cultural discipline was in maintaining social order, ie. generating a higher social welfare than a lack of discipline.

For an idea, look at how people in many third-world countries keep time. Read Bernard Lewis' chapter in "What Went Wrong" about clocks and Turkey. It's interesting stuff. Coincidental with poverty? I think not.

Social and institutional discipline are cornerstones in modern civilization, no argument. I don't see a compelling argument yet why marriage as an insitution somehow should be exempted, either.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-20-2013 11:04 PM)P Dog Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 09:28 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

I vaguely remember a poll on here where members were a lot more liberal than everyone thought.

How conservative can the forum really be when Obama won over 2/3 of the vote in this poll? http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-15593.html? and won a 2008 poll by an even higher margin http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-180.html? Remember that most of our readers are single, under 30 and not particularly religious. I think the conservative element is just more vocal than it's size would indicate, which is amplified by the writing of a few conservative bloggers.

Thanks P-Dog, that is exactly what I was thinking of.

It is funny to look how much the forum grew from 2008-2012.

[thatGuy]

(02-20-2013 09:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I get the sense you read some other article

Really? You didn't write

ROK Wrote:

Take Barack Obama [...] His politics, like those of the Democratic Party writ-large, are anywhere from center to center-right, by almost any historical or global measure.

"American left is European centre-right",

ROK Wrote:

Regulation, of banks and oil companies, for instance—which were steadily relaxed throughout the conservative ascendancy starting in the 1980s—would have prevented, or at least mitigated, a lot of the economic woes that have set America irretrievably back in recent years.

"Reagan didn't stop the credit crunch", or

ROK Wrote:

I don’t like the idea that General Electric pays no income tax

"GE needs to pay their CIT"? And, of course, you provide no actual support that liberal counterparts would in fact benefit the "average man." That's the shallow part. There's nothing to respond to. It's just a collection of assertions.

(02-20-2013 09:34 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 08:08 PM)thatGuy Wrote:  

I know. We shouldn't generalize. What a great point.

Great. Then my work is done. I'm glad to introduce you to the powers of nuance.

You didn't. You took a tiny group of outliers, yelled "We still exist", and pretend that it somehow disproves the overwhelming tendency of left to support every feminist insanity. That's thought-debilitating focus on details.

(02-20-2013 08:08 PM)thatGuy Wrote:  

What, not giving you confirmation bias? You'll have to ask the editor-in-chief, Roosh.

No, posting poorly-researched (let's be honest: not researched) manifestos instead of insightful articles.

"Welcome To Post-Gender Happytopia®!" was hilarious, "8 Essential Rules To Surviving The Workplace" and "Now You Need Game To Get A Job" were both immediately useful, "How To Become A Better Misogynist" was structured perfectly... Even the obvious "Truth About AIDS & Heterosexual Transmission" is clearly sourced and thought out.

"OMG not all liberals are coffee-sipping feminists in skinny jeans" next to those looks even worse than it would on its own.

[Blaster]

(02-21-2013 08:15 AM)j r Wrote:  

You could just as easily turn it all around and say that traditional society is the blue pill, weighing men down with family and responsibility in order to get them working soul-crushing jobs in factories and cubicles.

I'd argue that family, responsibility, and hard work are not blue pill. Blue pill is the pervasive lies about why you are doing it. It's being lied to about the nature of your obligations to society and women and the nature of women themselves. Red pill is the awareness of those lies. How you decide to live your life from there is up to you.

This is why it's actually not so hard to find red pill-ish examples in mainstream media if you look for them (hell Mystery had a whole reality show on VH1 for 2 seasons). For most of us, the truth was right in front of our face all along. It took the Roissy's and Angry Harry's of the manosphere-- extreme, crass, not-giving-a-fuck types who we probably don't agree with entirely, to draw our attention to the pervasive deceptions and hypocrisy throughout the culture.

[thegmanifesto]

(02-21-2013 10:01 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 08:15 AM)j r Wrote:  

You could just as easily turn it all around and say that traditional society is the blue pill, weighing men down with family and responsibility in order to get them working soul-crushing jobs in factories and cubicles.

I'd argue that family, responsibility, and hard work are not blue pill. Blue pill is the pervasive lies about why you are doing it. It's being lied to about the nature of your obligations to society and women and the nature of women themselves. Red pill is the awareness of those lies. How you decide to live your life from there is up to you.

This is why it's actually not so hard to find red pill-ish examples in mainstream media if you look for them (hell Mystery had a whole reality show on VH1 for 2 seasons). For most of us, the truth was right in front of our face all along. It took the Roissy's and Angry Harry's of the manosphere-- extreme, crass, not-giving-a-fuck types who we probably don't agree with entirely, to draw our attention to the pervasive deceptions and hypocrisy throughout the culture.

You guys confuse the hell out of me with these colored "pills". (Hell, and I used to be in the "pharmaceutical industry").

Someone needs to break down the difference for everyone.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

This type of division is the consequence of the binary electoral choices we have to make. If we could vote on individual policies, partisan politics would have a difficult time surviving. A large portion of Republican voters support the Republicans because they prioritize economic freedoms, but those voters would prefer Democratic policies on social freedoms. Many Democratic voters prioritize social freedoms, but would prefer Republican policies on economic freedoms.

Tuth gets the reason why so many in the manosphere oppose leftism; misandrist policies usually fall on the left, at least they have in recent decades, but don't forget that it was the right forcing men to die in pointless wars when leftists and libertarians (real liberals) were fighting to end conscription. American political parties will always aim for a set of policies that give them 50% of the vote. Most politicians don't really give a shit what those policies are.

[bojangles]

ive noticed I can't seem to comment anymore. Maybe work has blocked the new comment system

[soup]

(02-21-2013 09:03 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 08:15 AM)j r Wrote:  

This is half true. There is somewhat if a crisis of masculinity right now. Too many dudes are either Affliction-wearing clowns or effeminate SWPLs. This is the area where I think the manosphere has value.

However, all this talk about civilization and traditonal society and what is "natural" is a bit overblown.
You could just as easily turn it all around and say that traditional society is the blue pill, weighing men down with family and responsibility in order to get them working soul-crushing jobs in factories and cubicles.

The idea that a certain way of life is necessarily better for society or necessary for civilization is suspect at best. And it's usually just a way for people to justify their pre-existing preferences or rationalize their privileges. Slavery was necessary for the pre-war south and that's why white southerners fought so hard to keep it. Does that mean it was right? Society is an abstraction. You can have a very stable society in which the individual people in that society are living terrible lives. If you want to justify a certain way of life, then you need to make a case to individuals that one way of living is better than another and let individuals decide for themselves. This is why I am neither conservative nor progressive. I am liberal, in the classical sense. Do whatever you want, just clean up your own mess.

Personally, I'm not interested in existing solely for the purpose of being a cog in someone else's grand ideals of what society ought to be. And it doesn't matter if that someone else is a traditionalist pursuing some idealized version of the 1950s or a progressive who is trying to turn the world into some kind of gender-neutral, welfare-state vegan paradise of social justice.

I think there are objective standards of when life is better or worse. Just ask people. It's common knowledge people today are more stressed and less happy than our grandparents. Funnily, that time was the point of high growth, high degress of wage equality.

Now, no one wants to feel like a cog.

But a lot of men were happy with 9-5 jobs and wives and children to come home to. And a lot of women were happier, too.

I think a solid case could be made that 1960 was the time when Americans were happiest.

They did an experiment in behavioral economics that showed how important cultural discipline was in maintaining social order, ie. generating a higher social welfare than a lack of discipline.

For an idea, look at how people in many third-world countries keep time. Read Bernard Lewis' chapter in "What Went Wrong" about clocks and Turkey. It's interesting stuff. Coincidental with poverty? I think not.

Social and institutional discipline are cornerstones in modern civilization, no argument. I don't see a compelling argument yet why marriage as an insitution somehow should be exempted, either.

I wonder if joy is a commodity. We are social animals. Is it even possible for a lot of people to be concurrently content? Would the content beta of the 1960s be so happy if he was aware that his wife was getting fucked by some cad while he was out working?

I hate to say it, but I bet society is built more on gradations of lying than anything else. It's possible that our planet is one gigantic hamster wheel / cock-carousel.

And as far as lifting ourselves out of destitution goes, you can only do that if you are aware of and actually believe that there are other viable options. Some people grow up in a kill or be killed environment and are so uneducated that they wouldn't know how to lift themselves up by their boot straps even if they wanted to.

I have friends who are educators and they tell me that a lot of kids who grow up in shit situations are essentially ruined at like eight years old. At this point it is nearly impossible to teach or fix their behavior.

I bet you could say same kind of thing about a lot of betas who could have blue-pill Stockholm syndrome. This is where white-knighting comes from.

It's all about frames and options. George Lakoff's books Don't Think of an Elephant, and Whose Freedom?: The Battle Over America's Most Important Idea articulate how these things work.

To be a player in today's world, you really have to have sense that things that something is wrong. Maybe you got divorce-raped, maybe you had an alpha dad and are questioning your own paucity of pussy. I don't believe that everyone is cut out for the player's life.

The question is: can Socialized Democracy and Game be reconciled? Can we have our cake and eat it too? I want everyone to at least have a place to live, food to eat, access to healthcare and education- the basics.

We need as much a level playing field as possible. This is why I don't like over-reaching feminism (It's enough already. You got what you wanted, now shut-up) or ultra-conservatism. Both are too selfish.

[Blaster]

(02-21-2013 10:42 AM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

You guys confuse the hell out of me with these colored "pills". (Hell, and I used to be in the "pharmaceutical industry").

Someone needs to break down the difference for everyone.

Well I don't put too much stock into it, really, and if I was having a discussion with you directly I would likely avoid the terms entirely. I don't even like using "manosphere." But the matrix analogy does have some meaning to me. And here's how I see it:

"Blue pill" is, more or less, the unconscious acceptance of the female-oriented values, perspectives and narratives as normative ones. I'd say the writer with the best handle on this concept is Rollo over at Rational Male. Admonishment to men to "just be yourself" is an example. Slogans like "Feminism is about gender equality." Blind belief that "women earn 77 cents on the dollar for the same work."

"Red pill" is awareness that those values, perspectives, and narratives should not be accepted without question.

That's it, to me. Somewhere along the line rejection of unthinking beliefs like "hitting a woman is always wrong" turns into celebrating world star hiphop videos of girls getting their asses kicked, but whatever. I try to stay out of those discussions.

[Tuthmosis]

(02-21-2013 09:25 AM)thatGuy Wrote:  

"OMG not all liberals are coffee-sipping feminists in skinny jeans" next to those looks even worse than it would on its own.

So, in summary, you're a hater who calls anything that he doesn't agree with "poorly researched." Now that you know that you don't like my stuff, you know to avoid it. It's published every Wednesday.

[j r]

(02-21-2013 09:03 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  

I think there are objective standards of when life is better or worse. Just ask people. It's common knowledge people today are more stressed and less happy than our grandparents. Funnily, that time was the point of high growth, high degress of wage equality.

I don't doubt the existence of objective standards. I doubt the ability of other people to decide for me what those standards are. Your grandparents reference is the perfect example. I'm black. My grandmother was born in the south in 1923 and moved to New York at 15 because she didn't want to pick cotton anymore. I have not the slightest desire to go back to that.

[Giovonny]

Politics = male hamster


Emotion takes over real quick. All logic can go out the window.

Game guys are more liberal.

Manosphere guys are more conservative.

Just kidding, kind of. Okay, I'll admit - I have no idea. Who knows? I don't even know what the manosphere is..? To me, the manosphere is Roosh, G, HBO boxing and NBA basketball. That's my exposure to male issues. I stopped watching the news years ago.

Why do game guys get associated with manosphere guys? I don't care about politics, I care about improving the quality of the sexual experience, from start to finish.

On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm liberal. It really depends what we are talking about. I grew up liberal but then I grew to be more conservative. Then, I moved more towards the center, whatever that means. Now, I'm not sure what I think about politics...I am waiting to see what happens with the economy, etc before I settle on another political position.

Another thing that people don't realize is the fact that many minorities are actually conservative.

[Hotwheels]

(02-21-2013 02:55 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Politics = male hamster


Why do game guys get associated with manosphere guys?

Probably because guys like Roosh and Heartiste post about both.

The thing I get a kick out of is the manosphere guys that howl about feminism and having to use game to get laid would likely have an even harder time getting tail if things went back to the way they were years ago.

I don't give much of a fuck about either side. Feminism makes it easier to get laid without putting a ring on it and I do what the fuck I want anyway so I don't need help from MRA's.